The Man who may have Saved the World – Survival-of-the-Fittest v Civilization

Posted Sep 29, 2013 by Martin Armstrong

The man who may have saved the world is Stanislav Petrov who was one of those bureaucrats who received a report that the US had launched nuclear missiles on a first strike to Russia. Normally, he should have reported the attack to his superiors but did not perhaps on a gut feeling it was a computer error. Had he reported the attack, Russia would have launched and there would have been nuclear war in 1983. (see BBC Report)

This is what I mean can we BLINK? We are going to nee help. The world is full of hate and greed. People who think life is all about trying to hurt someone else to get even or to grab as much money for yourself as possible. This is the sad state of character and they justify themselves by saying this is what everyone else does – me first (survival of the Fittest).

Perhaps the most common theory that dominates so many concepts has been the famous idea that has risen to doctrine known as the survival-of-the-fittest. Indeed, survival-of-the-fittest on the surface appears to be a logical theory that has been applied on a wide scale basis including economics, business and human behavior. The term “fittest” has most often been cast into a roll that is not so loving and selfless. Essentially, many have applied this concept to justify the most aggressive and violent conduct. The phrase survival-of-the-fittest was not really coined by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer. (1820-1903) who developed the all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world. Spencer coined the phrase survival-of-the-fittest in his Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics. Nevertheless, Spencer did write about evolution before Darwin demonstrating that the theory clearly existed prior to Darwin who more or less provided more flesh to the bare bones yet there remains gaps that people still argue over as in human anthropology known as the missing link.

The theory of survival-of-the-fittest has justified human individualism whereby looking-out-for-number one is really what it is all about in modern terminology. Nonetheless, survival-of-the-fittest has been greatly distorted for in a true sense; looking-out-for-number has adopted the idea that being selfish is best. Looking-out-for-number has been used by socialists demanding to take the wealth away from those who have earned it to redistribute it to themselves. They have twisted idea that the greed of the rich is somehow evil and the greed of the socialist is good yet even the Bible includes within the Ten Commandments that it is a sin to covet thy neighbor’s goods.

A deeper understanding of the theory of the survival-of-the-fittest must also embrace the concept of cooperative synergy that emerges from a collective group. Recent studies suggest that evolution actually punishes the selfish (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130801/ncomms3193/full/ncomms3193.html). Many animals operate individually lacking the idea of forming a group effort while others form collectives like bees and ants. Lions will hunt together or alone. Wolves will hunt in packs and monkeys will form troops. Likewise, humankind has also tended to form social groups and we see this as self-evident within politics for there will never be just one political philosophy.

Consequently, what is overlooked within this superficial idea of survival-of-the-fittest is that isolation creates vulnerability and being uncooperative within human society results in the majority attacking that individual. This is the same within nature even at the cell level. If one cell turns rouge becoming cancer, this uncooperative behavior can kill the host. There is no theory of monopoly that has ever survived. The whole idea that a monopoly can exist on any sustainable basis is absurd. Within this assumption is that we can actually control any situation. You can pass a law to prohibit drinking, gambling, prostitution, or any vice. That does not eliminate it any more than a 55 mile an hour speed limit means everyone will drive at that speed. We cannot control social behavior nor can we suppress human nature as attempted within society by communism. And we certainly cannot create a monopoly and maintain the price at anything above market value as has been shown by OPEC with oil prices and every other commodity. Nor have we been able to eliminate the business cycle to prevent recessions and depressions. When has any regulatory body prevented any financial scandal?

Not everything functions in a solitary mode of pure independence that is what we call “uncivilized”. The theory of me-first is self-destructive. This is why the banks are collapsing for their have only looked at this proprietary trading model and to hell with clients.

To survive what we face and to avoid a MAD MAX event, we need a common bond. Anyone who is out only for themselves will fail. History proves this point. That is the UNCIVILIZED behavior of survival-of-the-fittest whereas we need to retain CIVILIZATION and that and means serious political reform – eliminating REPUBLICS and moving toward the only real check and balance – REAL DEMOCRACY minus the full time politicians.